THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

This would

a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
c) Give boost to spinners
d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?

"At this point, the merciful thing to do may be to put up one of those big green curtains they use when a horse falls at a racecourse, to spare the crowd the sight, and afford the man some privacy, for the ruthless but necessary end of his Test career." - The Guardian's Andy Bull on Keaton Jennings

I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?

Well you have yourself stated the major arguement against it. This is one discretion that would be most contentious.

I think it would be a good idea to start with the off side onan experimental basis and see what impact it has on the game, the balance between bat and ball etc. before deciding further.

It is genrally accepted that leg side bowling cramps up the batsman more and is more used for negative tactics. This has always been the case over the history of the game.

It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

This would

a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
c) Give boost to spinners
d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

Opinions please ??

I have always been for it.

I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.

Are there any rules as to how far from the stumps at the umpires end can the bowler bowl ?

Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.

Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .

Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

And, of course, once forced to bowl within the return crease, the bowler would actually suffer rather than gain as far as the angle of delivery is concerned , the further he went back.

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

I think we are talking about different planes .

I gather that when you say ( look at bold part of quote) , you mean that the bowler might be bowling the same line ( ie; the line more or less parallel to the line connecting the two stumps at the opposite ends of the wicket) , but from further back ( ie 23 or 24 or more yards from the batsman instead of the normal 22)

What I meant was , since you say that the front line of the crease is unlimited in length , couldnt the bowler try bowling from more than say 10 feet to the left hand side of the umpire standing at his normal position behind the stumps ?

If the bowler was allowed lbws from that angle, I think it would be very unfair to the batsman .